AbstractBackground : In Japan, 44.3% of neonates are delivered in private clinics without an attending pediatrician. Obstetricians in the clinics must resuscitate asphyxiated neonates in unstable condition, such as respiratory failure, and they are frequently transferred to tertiary perinatal medical centers. There has been no study comparing the physiological status and prognosis of neonates transported by ambulance with those transported by helicopter.Methods: Medical and transport records were used to compare the physiological status of neonates transported to Kagoshima City Hospital by land and those transported by air between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2017.Results : Data from 425 neonates transferred by land and 143 by air were analyzed. There were no significant differences between the two groups in mean gestational age, mean birthweight, fetal blood pH, Apgar score, or the Score for Neonatal Acute Physiology with Perinatal Extension‐II (SNAPPE‐II) on arrival to the tertiary center (16.3 ± 15.4 [95% confidence interval (CI): 13.2–17.7] vs 16.4 ± 15.4 [95% CI: 13.9–19.0], respectively; P = 0.999); both groups had SNAPPE‐II score 10–19, indicating no difference in mortality risk. The times to starting first aid and to admission to the intensive care unit were significantly reduced in neonates transported by air than by land. In subgroup analysis of patients of a gestational age ≤28 weeks, all cases of severe intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) were observed in the land transportation group.Conclusions: Neonatal transportation by air is as safe as land transportation, and time to first aid and intensive care are significantly reduced by transportation by air than by land. Air transport could also contribute to the prevention of IVH in neonatal transportation.